Agenda item

The Chairman asked the Head of Projects and Business Services to speak to Members in relation to the Waste Programme and give a presentation providing an update thereon (for copy see file of minutes).

The Head of Projects and Business Services thanked Members for the opportunity to speak and reminded the Committee of the Council’s Garden Waste Scheme for 2016, which closed for subscribers on 1 September 2016.  It was added that the number of subscribing customers had gone up from 2015, from 64,314 to 70,374, and that while some customers had not signed back up this year, there was an overall net increase.  It was noted that bin exchanges had increased, and that the number of complaints had significantly decreased, from 327 down to 54.

Members were shown a breakdown of which channels customers had used to sign up to the Garden Waste Scheme, with the majority via our website, and that the main sign up months were January and February 2016.

In terms of the Capital Programme associated with Waste Management, it was explained that the refurbishment programme for the Waste Transfer Stations totalling £11 million was progressing well with the works completed at Stainton Grove (Barnard Castle); Heighington Lane (Newton Aycliffe); and Annfield Plain.  Councillors noted that works were ongoing at Thornley Crossings (Shotton Colliery), with two Phases, Phase 1 having been completed, Phase 2 scheduled to be completed by January 2017.  The Head of Projects and Business Services referred Members to slides showing completed and ongoing works and added that planning permission would be sought for the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) at Stainton Grove, with plans being highlighted within the presentation.  It was noted it was anticipated that construction of the HWRC would take approximately 6 months and therefore completion would be in May/June 2017.  Members noted that this HWRC would include a trade waste area, and highlighted the area with a weighbridge on the plans.  It was added that this would be a commercial service and separate from the household waste.

The Head of Projects and Business Services noted that collection changes were taking place in the east operational area of the County from 10 October, to improve efficiency, deliver savings and absorb the additional workload from new housing developments.  It was noted that some changes would be to collection days, some to the weekly cycle in terms of waste or recycling, and for some residents both.  Members were aware of the promotion of the changes and reminded of the activities used, such as: individual letters to householders; individual householder calendars; the collection calendars being available on “MyDurham”; publicity and awareness raising; customers services; and via the Members’ update.

The Committee noted that there were various alternative collection regimes across the country and a lot of media coverage in this regard.  The Head of Projects and Business Services explained that in terms of reduced frequency collections, this would mean a reduced capacity in terms of refuse, with an increased capacity in recycling with examples in some parts of the country being: weekly recycling; weekly food collection; three weekly refuse collection; and a garden waste scheme.

It was noted that the main drivers in this respect were Government Policy and the financial business case for changing to such a routine.  Members noted the balance had to be made between the cost of food collections and recycling collections against the threat of fines from government, the grants available and the savings made from disposal.  For context, it was noted that the cost of disposal per tonne for Salford, an Authority utilising such routines, was £260, with the cost for Durham being £80.

The Head of Projects and Business Services noted that accordingly the position for Durham was that we our collections would remain as alternate weeks, with the Garden Waste Scheme also in operation, on the basis that:

·       Durham has relatively low refuse disposal costs through its procurement process

·       No statutory recycling targets/fines in England

·       Not awarded funding for food waste trials through weekly collection fund

·       The cost of implementing weekly recycling and food waste collection were greater than the savings this would make in terms of reduced refuse disposal

·       Not cost effective

The Chairman thanked the Head of Projects and Business Services and asked Members for their questions on the report and presentation.

Councillor C Kay asked if recycling credits were still in effect.  The Head of Projects and Business Services noted that the system still existed, however, it was not applicable to DCC, as it was intended for 2-tier Local Authority areas, where there were separate collection and disposal authorities.

Councillor P May noted the success of the Garden Waste Scheme and asked as regards the extending of the scheme and in terms of cleanliness of the operation, leaving some waste behind in the streets.  The Head of Projects and Business Services noted that the current scheme was 16 weeks long, and that the 2017 scheme would be 17 weeks.  It was noted some Authorities operated annual schemes, however it was not thought this was appropriate for County Durham.  In terms of any garden waste having led to issues of street cleanliness, the Head of Projects and Business Services noted he would reinforce this issue to the operational crews, although it can be very difficult on extremely windy days due to the nature of the waste.  The Chairman asked as regards the use of camera on refuse vehicles. 

The Head of Projects and Business Services noted there were cameras and that these could be used to investigate should there be complaints. 

Councillor I Jewell asked if rubbish blew down the street would a vehicle need to stop and go back.  The Head of Projects and Business Services noted that all vehicles had brushes and shovels on board and some could be taken care of there and then, and in the cases where this was not possible, the Council’s Streetscene Teams could be deployed as necessary.

Resolved:

That the update report and presentation be noted.